At a function to promote the Xijiang province of China, Ambassador Zhang Yan was asked by a business journalist about a distorted map of India, showing parts of Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh as being a part of China. By most news reports, the ambassador asked the reporter to “shut up” and then tried to make peace.

The paper’s “special correspondent” goes the extra mile to provide additional perspective to the incident:

“A scribe who had gained entry on the basis of his media credentials decided to take matters in his hand and clambered on the stage protesting the inclusion in the map of “parts of India” in China.

“As chaos reigned and the journalist, joined by another person, continued to give vent to his feelings from the state, Zhang told him to “shut up”. This further inflamed the scribe who was then pacified by Zhang and a senior foreign office official.…

“The hour-long disruption left many in the audience stunned and dissatisfied as this was the first time a business delegation led by its governor had come to India. China is investing heavily in the Xinjiang province and Pakistani businessmen, along with theri counterparts from bordering central Asian counrties, have already made inroads into the region.”

11 Responses to “The Hindu and ‘a scribe’ who was told to shut up”

Saw this online on one of the newspaper websites yesterday. But it is not in any of the print editions of the five papers I get. I think the Hindu has done a good job giving us the full story. If this so-called scribe who remains unidentified did not know that there is a border dispute between india and China, then he should probably go back fifty years and read the “breaking news” of the time. And then, to clamber on stage and start haranguing an ambassador is not exactly in conformity with any professional code for journalists. He should also ask himself what kind of map an Indian trade delegation would put on its brochures if it were to visit Pakistan — now a possibility since Pakistan has granted India MFN status.

What would have been China’s reaction if an Indian delegation showed a map showing parts of China as Indian territory, in a function to promote Indian business in China?
Then china-apologists like ‘The Hindu’ would have harangued the Indian delegation for ‘undiplomatic conduct’.

The Commie card holder N Ram’s The Hindu is openly Pro China at the expense of India. It doesn’t matter that beer guzzling Khushwant Singh showered encomiums on that newspaper. The fact is The Hindu is anti India and even anti Hindu.

Is the Hindu’s report factual or not ? If indeed the journo clambered on to the stage and attempted to disrupt the proceedings no paper needs to be pro-china to report it in the way the Hindu has done. if anything, all the other papers that carried the report are somewhat anti-china I would think.

The Chinese are not known for their facility with the English language. The envoy was most probably trying to say,”Please keep quiet.” Please don’t make a mountain out of molehill. Your disrespect is not more important than the power plant that the chinese are setting up in Gujarat or wherever.
Remeber the old adage: “Kabhi kabhi gadhe ko bhi baap banana padta hai”
and, “Jab Allah meherban to gadha pehelwan
But the way it was representated by ‘Hindu’ was not right at all.

There, clearly, are two sides to the story. The way the map was presented cannot be appreciated by any Indian; and the Chinese should have been more sensitive when they came up with a map at an Indian function. And, if a scribe climbed up the dais to protest, that was uncalled for too, though his feelings as a nationalist cannot altogether be ignored. He could as well have protested from his chair. There is a difference between a journalist and an activist, though the dividing line often gets blurred in sections of the media. The worse part of it all, here, is the headline, which is one-sided, and even objectionable from the point of view of a patriotic Indian. Why not present the whole thing in a matter-of-fact way, and leave it to the readers to make their own judgment? What is good journalism, after all?